the recommendations of the Govs. council twice?
Answer from RomneyBOTs: [sound of crickets]
My personal take is that Romney is preferable to Obama, and would have been preferable to McCain. In the Republican world right now, I see Palin and Jindal as possibilities that need seasoning. Most of the rest are over the hill and need to get off the stage.
When Thompson fizzled early, I sat looking at Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, and said, "I don't have a candidate." I still would have taken Mitt over the other two.
Answer from RomneyBOTs: [sound of crickets]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Probe: Mitt missed chance to keep Tavares jailed - Could have nixed killer’s early exit
Friday, December 28, 2007 - Boston Herald
"Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration failed to act on disciplinary recommendations
that would have kept ex-con killer Daniel Tavares locked up another year -
and behind bars at the time he was accused of killing a newlywed couple in Washington state."
"Despite Tavares’ long history of violence, the Romney-led Department of Correction
took no action on recommendations that he be stripped of “good time” because
of assaults on prison guards in 2003 and 2005, said sources familiar with a state probe into the case."
I see what you mean, but it is frustrating for conservatives that nothing is even acknowledged by the Romney followers for the last two years and I assume never.
Video, quotes, letters, transcripts, they just ignore it and plow ahead with campaign points. It gets a little tiresome to see all this feigned innocence after two and a half years of this stuff.
When talking to Romneybots it is as if every thread is a brand new, fresh start, they ignore his life’s history and start laying the personal attacks even before any critics show up.
Like Jim says if he needs to he will start plastering our arguments and Romney’s record on every single thread.
As far as conservatives being deeply repulsed by him, my personal experience is that I was a mild supporter but as I saw how robotic and nasty his followers were and I saw so many videos of him and his actual political self I came to be truly disgusted by the ugliness inside of him.
He is a repulsive man, with a repulsive past and his family before him was repulsive, You might remember his disgusting father, I do, I was young and I truly could not understand why his father was so un American.
A lot of new people do not know anything about Mitt except for the recent, very expensive makeover that he paid for, it is important that they learn who Mitt was for the previous 60 years and how passionately dedicated to that liberal agenda and his anti Reagan ism and even personal attacks against Ronald Reagan that the man was.
Diogenesis posts a lot of very useful facts, without him the truth would disappear and Romney would control the past.